click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
with as a consequence as an enemy combatant or enemy belligerent which would involve delaying his miranda rights. >> you don't want to turn over intelligence gathering over to a criminal attorney. under the law, there is no right to legal counsel when you are egg being questioned for national security purposes. i hope the obama administration will allow us that and they have a bad track record. >> and this is not the course the administration will take. they will take reading him his rights after national security exception has run out and prosecuting him in a federal court as well. >> molly: thank you. >> megyn: more breaking news. news reporting that federal charges have now been filed against the surviving suspect. though they are reportedly being filed under seal. that means we don't get to see them. they will have to let it's know what the charges are but perhaps not all the supporting information. in a case of this magnitude there is no way they are going to keep the charges private and not public. in other words, what exactly has he been charged with? a terrorist act, using weapons of mass destru
. >> and dan, how much longer can this questioning go on without reading the suspect his miranda rights? apparently, it hasn't happened yet. >> they're calling it the public safety exception. unclear how long they're allowed to do it. in past cases, like the underwear bomber, they questioned him for about 50 minutes and a court determined that was okay without a miranda warning. the further the time is away from the incident itself, the more perilous it is constitutionally. at some point, it doesn't matter. he challenges it later on, the court says, you shouldn't have done it. you shouldn't have questioned without his miranda. what happens then? that means, they throw out his statement. so what? they don't need his statement in connection. >> they have all the other evidence. >> this is about getting intelligence from him. not a statement they can use in court. >> and these charges expected to be filed. almost certain to face the death penalty. >> it will be a death-eligible charge for sure. a decision made later to seek the death penalty. the use of a weapon of mass destruction would b
that they don't have to read him his miranda rights right away. as time passes, does the justification for that exception grow weaker? are they on ls strong ground? >> it sure does, because as you know, miranda rights are a bedrock constitutional principle. we all have the right to remain silent, t get an attorney and be advised of those rights. the public safety exemption is a very narrow exemption. there has to be an imminent threat to the public. it certainly seems less imminent. >> don't officials who say the terror is over, don't they kind of undercut that argument, and does it really matter in the end? >> this is certainly an argument that's going to be handed to this defendant's defense attorney when that time comes. there have been contradictory statements made that there is no public threat, there is no ticking bomb, thank goodness, apparently, based on what we know so far. so we're giving them an argument to use later. >> the issue is, the questioning that's permitted without miranda is very narrow in scope, correct? >> yes. it's about what the public threat is. it's not all
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3